player skill rank

[barmar]

I am pretty sure you cannot officially use beginner as an adjective; not sure about novice.

 

English is very flexible in this regard, words can often be used outside their strict part of speech. We see this most often when nouns are verbed (see what I did there?). Proper grammar would be "beginning bridge player", but if someone said they were a "beginner bridge player" it would be acceptable unless they were using it in a writing class.

 

Go to english.stackexchange.com if you want to see lots of questions about word usage like this. In casual speech and writing, the rules are quite liberal.

[1eyedjack]

Likewise, there is no noun that cannot be verbed.

[Zelandakh]

Could you outline the usage of the verb "to personality" please, Jack.

[sfi]

Could you outline the usage of the verb "to personality" please, Jack.

I believe that's a synonym of 'to anthropomorphise'.

[blackshoe]

Intermediate is a noun as well as an adjective and verb. The odd one out is Advanced but it is hard to imagine why anyone would have a problem with this. There is also the rating Unknown - I suspect "egg" is simply a subset of this one. :)

Apparently you haven't read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. B-)

 

Part of my reason for suggesting "better terminology" is that the range of some of these is at least in theory narrow, while the range of others - I'm thinking of 'intermediate' here - is very wide.

 

On a really good day, I might consider myself advanced. Most often I'd say "intermediate". On a bad day, "novice". On a really bad day, "idiot". :D I seem to be having a lot of those last lately. :(

[1eyedjack]

Could you outline the usage of the verb "to personality" please, Jack.

I'll give it a go.

 

To personalitise/ize: to assign/ascribe a personality to an individual/object or to imbue said object/individual with a peronality

 

All tongue in cheek of course, as was earlier post.

 

Note that to verbalise a noun, it is permitted to change the ending of the noun.

[GreenMan]

First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language.

 

Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

 

--Peter Ellis

[pradipm]

I frequently play in tournaments in the site & found that members arbitrarily put advanced or expert etc against their name. I have a suggestion instead of members putting the skill themselves you people can put a ranking as mentioned in bboskill.com & display that figure against the respective member's name.

 

This way anyone can fairly gauge the skill level of their partners before committing to partnership. This used to be practised in chess site where I use to play.

 

It serves dual purpose, it tells the others about your skill level as well it informs you about the improvement in one's skill on a regular basis & people will strive to go higher up the ladder.

[1eyedjack]

I have a suggestion instead of members putting the skill themselves you people can put a ranking as mentioned in bboskill.com & display that figure against the respective member's name.

 

This way anyone can fairly gauge the skill level of their partners before committing to partnership.

 

As far as I know, the ranking at BBOSkill does not carry the seal of approval of any reputable statistician or peer review, and is no more or less snake oil than any other method.

 

The problem with publishing this data as if it had any validity is that then the ill-informed will place greater trust in the outcome than is warranted in reality.

[billw55]

As far as I know, the ranking at BBOSkill does not carry the seal of approval of any reputable statistician or peer review, and is no more or less snake oil than any other method.

 

The problem with publishing this data as if it had any validity is that then the ill-informed will place greater trust in the outcome than is warranted in reality.

They are already doing it. Awareness of bboskill has spread in the MBC, apparently a fair number of players take it seriously. Of course it is very easy to rig a high "rating" that way, much easier than in most rating systems.

[Zelandakh]

The ones that take it seriously are those that think getting an IMP every board or two against beginners makes them expert. Because that is all bboskill does - it takes your results for the month (freely available online) and decides that any plus makes you advanced and a modest plus above that is expert. No allowance for opponent level, or at least none worth mentioning. It is more accurate to pull the results for the month yourself because at least that way you can cast an eye down the names in the list in case there are some there you recognise.

 

And just on a serious note to pradipm, ratings on bridge sites have been tried more than once. They have been found (so far) to cause more issues than they solve. It is different from chess because it is a partnership game. More than that, the BBO management have consistently stated for a very long time now that they are not going to introduce such a system. It is not that noone has thought about it, it is a design decision. If you search around you might find alternatives where ratings are implemented. Most of the feedback I have heard from those sites is still quite negative about how the ratings work in practise but perhaps they would work for you - just be careful not to drop below 50%!

[helene_t]

hahaha Han is intermediate-, Meikever is intermediate+ with a raw score of -0.12 and an adjustment of 0. That rating site is 100% ridicolous.

 

Richie has an adjustment of -0.17, that is pretty amazing also.

[hotShot]

hahaha Han is intermediate-, Meikever is intermediate+ with a raw score of -0.12 and an adjustment of 0. That rating site is 100% ridicolous.

 

It says I am advanced+!

 

So why should I object. I will have to wait until it has the bad boards scored too.

[sfi]

This way anyone can fairly gauge the skill level of their partners before committing to partnership. This used to be practised in chess site where I use to play.

 

Or you could play half a dozen hands with someone. If you can't tell how good they are, they are good enough to play with more regularly.

[Zelandakh]

jec has an adjustment of -0.28 - he needs to come to the Acol Club and play against the real experts! :lol:

 

Meanwhile jack has an adjustment of +0.1 and a Total Score above both Jimmy and Justin. I eagerly await his appearance in the next Bermuda Bowl.

 

Pradipm has a rating of 0.1, half of which is adjustment. In the bboskill world this is enough to make a player Advanced. In the real world this is intermediate unless you are playing against a better calibre of opponent. That is the case for Han with his score of -0.36, close to beginner on bboskill and still considerably more impressive than +0.1 against randoms.

 

So a final question - what rating do you arbitrarily put next to your name Pradipm?

[scarletv]

When mainly playing in a closed group of players (main hall, team matches) the rating of bboskill can at most show you the rating within this group. Other habits like playing as sub or when being tired or coaching or only playing with a good partner or playing while the baby is around or ... will have a big influence too. It is too simple to just take the results of my-hands to create rating of skill.

[Trinidad]

I don't think this is a problem, just reality. Assuming a normal distribution of skill, intermediate is expected to have the largest population.

Unfortunately, skill is not normally distributed. Think e.g. about the distribution of Elo ratings among chess players. There are very few high ELO ratings and many low Elo ratings (and even more without an Elo rating).

 

The same in soccer. There is Ronaldo, Messi, ..., a few very good players, more good players, many more quite allright players, lots of ok players, tons of so-so players, masses of poor players.

 

I do not know any field where skill is normally distributed.

 

Rik

[hotShot]

Unfortunately, skill is not normally distributed. Think e.g. about the distribution of Elo ratings among chess players. There are very few high ELO ratings and many low Elo ratings (and even more without an Elo rating).

 

The same in soccer. There is Ronaldo, Messi, ..., a few very good players, more good players, many more quite allright players, lots of ok players, tons of so-so players, masses of poor players.

 

I do not know any field where skill is normally distributed.

 

Rik

 

You should rethink that.

If you take the ELO to the x-axis and the number of player with a specific ELO number as y-axis you will get a normal distribution.

At the right end of your x-scale there are only few player with a high number.

The bulk of player with have some mediocre number.

Of cause you have to leave those people out, who don't have a number at all.

[helene_t]

I don't think the question whether skill level is normal distributed or not makes so much sense. It likely depends how it is measured.

 

Say it is measured as expected IMPs per board that you would win playing in a large crossimp indy with participation of a representitive sample of bridge club members from all over the World. It would't surprise me if you would get something close to a normal distribution. OTOH if you measure it in terms of price money won it will be heavily right-skewed.

[Trinidad]

I don't think the question whether skill level is normal distributed or not makes so much sense. It likely depends how it is measured.

 

Say it is measured as expected IMPs per board that you would win playing in a large crossimp indy with participation of a representitive sample of bridge club members from all over the World. It would't surprise me if you would get something close to a normal distribution. OTOH if you measure it in terms of price money won it will be heavily right-skewed.

How something is distributed always depends on what plotted along the x-axis. Any continuous distribution can be corrected to a normal distribution with a normalisation function.

 

Take, as an example, the distribution of the diameter of the particles in a powder (sand, powdered sugar, etc.), measured in meters (mm, µm, whatever). In most powders, this distribution is heavily skewed: there are many small particles and few large ones. However, if you plot the log of the particle size, then many natural particle size distributions are normal. This is typically not true for the powders you have at home since they are sieved, cutting off the distribution.

 

I think that if you could organize a pairs tournament where every single bridge player participates (let's not get into the problem of making pairs), ranging from the aunt Millies of this world to the national team of Monaco, I would think that the bulk of the field would end up with 49.9% and the Monaco players with 80%. In practice, most bridge tournaments are "sieved" and the distribution is cut off: Aunt Millie doesn't play in the Bermuda Bowl and Geir Helgemo doesn't play in Aunt Millie's kitchen. But I think there are many more kitchens than Bermuda Bowls.

 

Rik

[billw55]

Of course, in total there are many more very bad players than very good players. Many players who only barely leaned the game and rarely play, etc.

 

I was thinking more of the player population that seeks out and participates in competition. At tournaments for example - most of the bad players don't go, and most who do go are least marginally competent (insert jokes and stories if you like, it might improve the thread). So this population might look more normally distributed.

[Bbradley62]

I do not know any field where skill is normally distributed.

 

Rik

Among United States Tennis Assn league tennis players (330,000 strong), skill ratings are pretty close to normally distributed. Of course, this does not include the masses of people who hit tennis balls around once a year and would (almost) all be included at the lower end of the skill range, but it's a good indication for people who might call themselves "tennis players".

[1eyedjack]

If you only selected players from a population of those who have reached their equilibrium state of competence, then perhaps the resulting curve might look close to a normal distribution.How you would achieve that selection is of course the big IF.Where I fit in that spectrum is a little odd. Against human opposition I am certainly now in decline. Against robots I regard myself as ascending.

[Zelandakh]

It is not you jack - senility is setting in for the robots.

[helene_t]

Suppose you are captain of a team of four strangers, two advanced ones and two intermediate ones. What would partnership compatibility mean in that context? If "intermediate" means "understanding one's own system" while "advanced" means "understanding a wide range of systems", probably you should pair each intermediate with an advanced partner. Unless, maybe, if there is a local standard which both intermediates can be assumed to play.